Just because you say so...?
If our bodies did not have predictable mechanical qualities, medical doctors wouldn't be able to do their thing.
That computer systems operate on an integrated system of hardware & software doesn't preclude the mind/brain dichotomy from operating on the similar principles. Both software and the soul are immaterial.
Seeing massless intelligence in the IT model, we know that it can exist.
No, because I can argue and demonstrate it. Mechanical qualities, no, predictable qualities, yes, and even that's stretching it, since we don't work like machines
The dichotomy you use is not the same because we don't quantify the mind in the same way we can quantify the brain, hardware and even software (which works on, I'm pretty sure, demonstrable and measurable principles that are pretty set, given how common software is these days)
No, software isn't immaterial, it still technically functions in a material fashion, even if it's more energy, so to speak, it's not a purely conceptual idea like the soul and consciousness/mind are.
And now you're just throwing out jargon, expecting me to just bend over to your argument rather than actually explaining that point in more detail.
Intelligence is a property of the mind, it's not a material or concrete notion in itself anymore than gravity is necessarily a thing itself, but what emerges from an object relative to mass.
You've failed to demonstrate the soul is anything more than superfluous expansion of the mind concept, which is at least cogent and able to be structured more, even if it isn't on the same level as our understanding of the brain. But the analogy of our brain to hardware and mind (or soul) to software seems overly simplistic, even given my limited understanding of computer engineering and such. The data on my computer or the data that comprises software I use is not immaterial so much as intangible in the sense that, unlike the hardware, it isn't able to be interacted with in the same way.
Immaterial is not conceptual, but the problem is as much the vague use of the words in the discussion. I don't tend to use immaterial in a manner that would suggest it's still physical in the world rather than more conceptual. But if we're going to throw in some 3rd definition involving the supernatural, that just further muddies the waters